It is often useful to take a break from the cascade of information that inundates us, relax, and return to the fray with a fresh look. Jimmy J's wonderful and painful series of posts over the last few days allowed me to take a break from the Blogosphere, disconnect from the world for a few days, and refresh my outlook. Last night and this morning I read through a plethora of comments and e-mails, made my usual rounds of Blogs and news outlets, and noticed anew a number of trends that caught my attention.
First was the fact that there are so few people from different parts of the ideological spectrum who are able to disagree and remain reasonable and polite. One reason so many people here enjoy arguing with Ed is that he never descends to the levels we often associate with partisans. I suspect that Ed, like many of us, is not as certain that he has the only or best grasp of reality than partisan ideologues.
A second point is that the reason there is so much passion in our arguments is that the questions we are trying to come to grips with are so important. Many of the issues I address are quite literally life and death.
This brings up a third point. Several triumphant commenters made the point that I had mis-read the omens leading to the election. That is undoubtedly true since I thought the Republicans would hold the Senate (and it was a very close outcome.) However, I don't recall ever claiming to be infallible and I am not certain that infallibility should ever be considered a necessary precondition for making my opinions known on my Blog. The fact is that I remain very concerned about a number of dangerous trends in the world, worry that the Democrats will make protecting Western Civilization more difficult, and hope that they will surprise me and help make the world safer and freer in the next two years.
[Any readers who have ventured over here from James Wolcott's Blog, please feel free to gloat triumphantly, but keep it respectful and polite, if possible. You might consider reading some of Ed the lefty's comments (here's a good one as an example) for a tutorial on how best to phrase criticisms.]
Here are some good points to keep in mind: None of us know exactly how to optimally tackle the problems we face, there is no single approach which can guarantee success, and we are all struggling to find the way forward. I prefer to take an optimistic approach and that includes imputing good motives to those I consider political opponents.
The dangers are real:
Peter Brooks writes of the emerging Middle East Nuclear race:
WE may have a nuclear-arms race on our hands in the Middle East.
Last week, four key Arab states, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that they were launching their own nuclear programs.
Sure, these are officially peaceful (e)nergy programs - but everyone and his brother will suspect that they'll be accompanied by some sort of covert nuclear-weapons research. After all, Iran - the Middle Eastern state that virtually the entire word believes is on a beeline to nukes - has long insisted its program is purely for power generation, too.
And, of course, the seeming lack of progress in getting Iran to curtail its nuclear quest gives nearby states serious motivation to get nukes of their own. Saudi Arabia, Egypt - indeed, every Arab regime except Syria - see Iran as an implacable rival. (And some claim even Syria wants out of its alliance with the mullahs.)
Plus the region's Sunni Arab regimes fear the rise of Shia Persian Iran. Iran aspires to dominate the region and achieve superpower status, placing itself squarely atop the Muslim world - no doubt in large part at the expense of the region's current Sunni Arab rulers.
Can anyone question that introducing more nuclear arms into this volatile region is a problem? Can anyone argue that the perception by our enemies that the Democrats' victory favors their interests makes this arms race more likely? If our allies and enemies in the region believe that the Democrats' victory makes American disengagement from the region more likely, then the risks of misbehavior and missteps in the region become more likely. Please note, this has nothing to do with the Demcrats' intentions or actual behavior. We do not yet know how they will handle their new responsibilities. It does have to do with the perception by those in the region that their victory brings America's resolve into further question.
The argument has been made that our presence in Iraq is creating more terrorists. In reality, there is no way anyone can know if our presence is creating more terrorists or killing more terrorists, but we are likely to find out if the Democratic approach of pressing for withdrawal will, in fact, make the West safer. At the same time the Baker commission is going to provide "realpolitik" cover for a strategy of decreasing involvement in Iraq; two years may not be long enough to determine how this will be used by our enemies, but we can be certain they will continue to tout our scale-down as a great victory.
On a different front, there are Democrats in the house committed to policies that will damage our ability to fight the war at home. John Conyers is in line to be the next chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:
John Conyers And The Muslim Caucus
"The policies of the Bush administration have sent a wave of fear through our immigrant communities and targeted our Arab and Muslim neighbors," he growls.
He'll soon be in a position to act on his promises. And he has the full backing of the expected speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants to criminalize FBI and Customs Service profiling of Muslim terror suspects.
"Since Sept. 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin," she said. "We must make it illegal."
Conyers, a lawyer by trade, last decade pushed through a bill to help stop what he called "DWB," driving while black. He dubs post-9/11 profiling "flying while Muslim."
Pelosi has also promised Muslims she'll "correct the Patriot Act," one of the most valuable tools the FBI has in ferreting out jihadist cells lurking in Muslim communities.
I have always been struck by a certain paradox. The Conyers approach, in fact the approach of all those who denigrate the Patriot Act and wish to repeal it, is based on the belief that there is minimal or no support for terrorism within the American Muslim community. They may well be correct (and I hope they are). If there is no support for terrorism in the American Muslim community, then the Patriot Act is unnecessary and should be repealed. However, it seems to me a patriotic Muslim would want to do everything possible to minimize the risk of terror attacks by Muslims because the one sure way to bring down persecution on the American Muslim community would be a successful homegrown terrorist attack. Just as I have no problem being screened at the airport (although the TSA's lack of intelligent judgment is worth noting) I would imagine any reasonable American Muslim would take the trade-off of occasional inconvenience in the interest of ongoing amity. However, as so rarely occurs in life, we may yet have the opportunity to see if Conyers is more correct than those of us who have supported such efforts as the Patriot Act.
[If I were a Democrat in Congress, the last thing I would want would be to actually repeal the Patriot Act. There would be absolutely no upside to such a repeal. If there were no future attacks, the repeal would be forgotten; if there were future attacks, the Democrats would end up being blamed for the repeal. That is my unsolicited, free advice for the Democrats, which they are free to ignore.]
Finally, there is this. The Democrats now have the opportunity to show how they can lead. If we are kept safe and the country prospers under their ministrations, we will all be the better for it. If their policies and prescriptions prove to be foolhardy and dangerous, we will pay the price, possibly a very high price. Ultimately, reality will dictate who is more correct.
Recent Comments